Alissa Quart’s ‘Art of Dependence’ vs. American Individualism

American individualism is under attack. Or is it? 

In Can We Put an End to America’s Most Dangerous Myth?, Alissa Quart explains:

From a child's earliest age, independence is extolled as a virtue, with “doing things on your own” as proof of maturity. I celebrated my daughter when she was little for picking out her books herself. She always wanted to go on the monkey bars without help and swung and did tricks until her hands were blistered. Now that she’s 12, I cheer her for taking herself home from school on the train and for climbing by herself at a gym for hours.

So, yes, some independence is worth honoring. But other strains are not as positive. For instance, being required to be “independent” when we are ill and without adequate health insurance coverage is not to be recommended. Neither is having to take care of our children entirely on our own, in the silo of our immediate family, without a state-supported nursery in sight. And going into debt for simply covering the cost of our own or our children’s college education is far from salutary.

But because Americans are taught that we must go it alone, we often force ourselves to slog through these — and other crucial human experiences — in solitude. And when we do get assistance, we may feel we must play down the help we receive from our government, our families or our neighbors.

Clearly, Quart is pushing for welfare statism. State-supported nurseries so parents don’t have to “take care of our children entirely on our own,” and the implied call for government funding of higher education so people can avoid the responsibility of “covering the cost of our own or our children’s college education,” are immoral socialistic schemes. It’s hard to figure out what the “some independence is worth honoring” includes if not basic responsibilities like raising one’s own children is too independent. Note also the equivocating between help from family and neighbors, and “help” from the government. The first is voluntary, the second coercive. Moral equivocation of this kind is typical disingenuousness of welfare statists.

But that’s not her main focus. That’s just table-setting. Consider these excerpts:

The “we” here is we Americans, as the notion we must do without support is ingrained in our nation’s culture. Our most toxic myth is our “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” individualism. In extreme cases, we see even asking for help as something to avoid at all costs, which can be deadly, as in the rising suicide rates of older men in this country who are some of the least likely to ask for psychological assistance. Or we sometimes still call leaning on our close friends and partners “codependence,” even after a pandemic raised depression and anxiety to record levels. We also are regularly told by self-help manuals that we need to look only to ourselves to achieve mental well-being, even though that state inevitably — and biologically — requires social connection.

That’s a sampling. There’s much more of this kind of talk. Accepting help on occasion, when needed, which is not in and of itself dishonorable, is not what Quart is promoting. Consider this:

“The art of dependence” means accepting aid with grace and, crucially, recognizing the importance of others. It takes dignity and skill to lean on friends, loved ones and colleagues — and even on the state. Resourcefulness is required for collaboration. We sometimes work hard to get what we demand: To secure aid from social services often requires what is known as the administrative burden — the effort, knowledge and sheer time it takes for citizens to obtain benefits. In a society that pathologizes dependence — even as every human being is born into it — being vulnerable takes courage.

Quart takes direct aim at independence, and by logical extension, human dignity. This, from a person who babbles about “recognizing the importance of others. Note the reference to children—the dependence that “every human being is born into it.” This is classic socialist tripe. Children are dependent. That’s a metaphysical fact. Quart wants to extend that dependence into a lifetime mission. Children, Quart holds, should not be raised to become independent, self-reliant adults. They should be kept in a perpetual state of childhood dependence—dependence, on what? In the end, the state, since dependence in Quart’s socialist world would be a universal attribute, congruent with everyone. Material dependence passes easily into intellectual dependence. Why think for yourself, the ultimate and most important form of independence? To what end, when “others”—ultimately, the government—is there at all times to “help?” Apparently, the only self-reliance Quart approves of is to overcome the “administrative burden,” which requires “resourcefulness” and “hard work” to “secure aid from social services.” The only independence Quart seems to approve of is that which is necessary to take advantage of others.

We all experience vulnerability at one time or another. It is not shameful to seek help from others in times of vulnerability. But Quart wants us to celebrate vulnerability. That takes courage, she claims. But what becomes of one’s self-esteem, pride, and dignity once you’ve turned yourself into a parasite who manufactures endless vulnerability in order to exploit others? That’s not what she means, you say? Then what do you make of her elevating dependence into an “art?” What takes courage is taking care of yourself, as much as possible. Paving the way for totalitarian socialism crepes into the back of my mind here: What kind of culture paves the way for socialism, a culture that “pathologizes dependence”—i.e. Celebrates independence—or one that reveres dependence?      

To help make her case, Quart also equivocates between cooperation and dependence:

It can also take craft. In fact, the scholar William Huntting Howell, in his book “Against Self-Reliance,” used the phrase “arts of dependence” to describe crafts that were supposedly derivative and collective, like early American women’s embroidery.

But crafts that are “supposedly derivative and collective” depend on each individual pulling her own weight. The final product in Quart’s example, women’s embroidery, requires independence in the form of each individual contributing to the productive outcome through her own skill and self-motivation. Such productive ventures require independence, not people who are looking to shift the “burden” of self-responsibility onto the shoulders of co-workers.

Quart attacks a straw man. American individualism does not mean lone wolfism. We all depend on someone, but not in the way she means. Let’s celebrate that.. Indeed, America’s Founding ideals of individual rights and constitutionally limited government gave rise to the greatest social system of interdependent cooperation ever—Capitalism. When I look around my home , I see that my life is chock full of material goods that others made. That doesn’t mean I’m not independent. I acquired these goods through trade, which depends on others: you can’t trade with yourself. If I had to make this stuff myself, I’d never have them. Instead, I exchanged value for value. Trade is a transaction among independent individuals, each acting according to their own values and self-interest, even as they depend on the other to deliver the value you seek. Independence and shared prosperity do not conflict.

We all depend on Capitalism to protect the individual freedom that enables independent producers to continue to generate the products and services that make our lives amazingly prosperous. Likewise, cooperative ventures that enrich your life yet depend on cooperation with others does not compromise your independence as long as you pull your weight. Book clubs, bowling leagues, political action committees, fire departments on up to business ventures, charities, labor unions and professional associations, and the myriad other cooperative ventures are not precluded by independence. They complement each other, provided you choose these associations voluntarily. 

All of this does not preclude independence. Independence starts with independent thinking—choosing your own values, goals, and careers. Independence does not preclude getting charitable assistance. That is not nullified if you need help—as long as you need it and it makes sense. We all need assistance at some point, and there is nothing inherently shameful about accepting voluntary help when you cannot do something for yourself. Good will is not a vice (Medicare and other government programs, being coercive, not voluntary, is a different debate). Accepting or giving help is fine under certain circumstances. When genuinely needed, such dependence doesn’t compromise independence. It’s common sense, and common sense is a personal, independent responsibility. 

Rational dependence, whether trade-oriented or charitable, is not a vice, as long as you do for yourself what you can when you can. Being self-reliant is vital to one’s self-esteem, self-respect, and dignity. To celebrate dependence is to foster an entitlement mentality, which leads to thinking the world owes you your living and your happiness—a character-destroying blank check to take advantage of others. But parasitism is not the path to happiness, or a healthy society. Self-reliance and its corollary, respect for others, is. Rational dependence, within the proper context, need not be thought of as a necessary evil. But neither should it be celebrated. Celebrate independence. American individualism is America’s greatness. It defines America. Personal independence is foundational to a free, capitalist, democratic society. Most critically, independence and the freedom it relies on is the means of pursuing, and hopefully achieving, personal contentment and happiness.

In a sense, Quart is right. There is a dangerous myth infecting America—Quart’s own straw man, the myth of the lone wolf rugged individualist. We should not buy it. Quart’s political agenda is pretty clear. But more fundamentally, and more damaging, is her attack on individual character. The most fundamental need of humans, being the rational animal, is the confidence in his ability to deal with the world. That confidence, which manifests in virtues like self-esteem, pride, and honesty, is vital not just to living but to flourishing and happiness. Quart seeks to undermine that confidence. A dependent person—that is, dependency as a character trait—can not be in control of his life, and thus can never be happy. This is a mean, heartless piece that should not only be brushed off as nonsense but firmly condemned. It is dangerous.

Related Reading:

Obama’s Way vs. The American Way by me for The Objective Standard

Contra Hugh Hewitt, America Does have a Shared Morality

Books to Aid in Understanding Ayn Rand's Rational Selfishness

Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism? —my answer

Reply Responses to My Answer regarding QUORA: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’ - 3

Contra Dueling Letter Writers, the First and Second Amendments are Not Mutually Exclusive

Back-to-back letters by Steve Cupani and David Sheridan, published in the New Jersey Star-Ledger in January 2023, took aim at the first two amendments to the U.S. Constitution from opposite perspectives, each claiming that one or the other “creates” violence.

I’ll take each in turn. 

Under the heading 2nd Amendment is a blessing, not a ‘curse’ [1/8/22], Steve Cupani responded to a Star Ledger Editorial Board (SLEB) titled “The 2nd Amendment is a curse:

Some people find that the Second Amendment is actually a blessing. Some would say the First Amendment is inherently just as dangerous as the Second Amendment, maybe even more so.

The content of propaganda and hate-related rhetoric allowed by the First Amendment’s right of free speech has inspired violence against others, and has led to people losing their lives over the course of history.

The Second Amendment’s gun ownership rights simply guarantee every citizen the right to defend themselves from any First Amendment-created violence toward them in this country.

I’m glad to see that Cupani understands that the fundamental argument for gun ownership rights is personal self defense, which derives directly from the individual’s inalienable right to life.

But as right as he is on the Second Amendment, he is much more wrong—dangerously wrong—on the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees intellectual freedom, including freedom of speech. Speech doesn’t create violence. Violence derives from individuals choosing to commit violence. People have free will. No matter how much “propaganda and hate-related rhetoric” he encounters, it is the violent offender, not the speaker, who is guilty of the violence. The idea that speech is violence is Woke nonsense. 

And what of “propaganda and hate-related rhetoric?” Propaganda is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as follows: “information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions.” That’s the broadest definition, the most relevant, and the most useful. The concept “propaganda” is so broad as to basically make the advocacy of any controversial opinion capable of “creating violence.” 

Likewise, how does one define “hate-related rhetoric?” Almost anything can be “related” to hate, sometimes even rational hatred. I hate Communism, Nazism, Theocracy, egalitarianism, and collectivism, which includes racism, a form of collectivism, of all kinds. How does that “create” violence? Should I be held responsible for whomever acts violently after hearing my opinion? If I criticize communism, am I responsible for some offended communist who commits violence after hearing my “propaganda?” Where is the justice in that? Cupani would probably protest, “But I didn’t mean that.” But then who gets to define “hate-related rhetoric?” Cupani? Champions of Communism, Nazism, Theocracy, egalitarianism, and collectivism, who exist in significant numbers. 

My opposition to these ideologies, which I express regularly and strongly, is certainly hate-related. Should one of these advocates of ideologies I hate commit violence, is it me who “created” their violence? How, precisely, did I create it? Those are evil ideologies, you say? Only they should be (presumably) banned from speaking (which would happen without the First Amendment protections.) By what right does anyone have to silence them? If so, what limiting principle would prevent the silencing of proponents of “better” ideologies, such as me?

Cupani might say, But that’s political discourse. I’m talking about bigotry, like racism or homophobia. But again, bigotry can be subtle. So-called “anti-racists” claim racism is “implicit,” and comes camouflaged in ordinary language. What limiting principle can sort it out? What authority gets to decide? More to the point, On what basis is someone spouting explicit racial slurs responsible for someone else choosing to commit violence after hearing the slurs? How does one even prove it? The First Amendment protects all speech, including the right to fight back against disagreeable ideas or expressions through counter-speech.

In rebuttal to Cupani, David Sheridan, under the heading 1st Amendment isn’t the curse [1/16/22], wrote:

In his letter, Cupani argues that free speech incites violence, whereas the Second Amendment allows us to protect ourselves from that free speech-inspired violence.

I guess it has not occurred to Cupani that the violence, whatever its cause, too often manifests itself by the firing of guns made so plentiful by the modern over-interpretation of his beloved Second Amendment.

Perhaps if this hadn’t resulted in America being so dangerously over-armed, his need to defend himself wouldn’t be so urgent.

Certainly, some violence “manifests itself by the firing of guns.” But also by other means. There is a legitimate debate about the government’s role in regulating and limiting gun ownership, including what kinds of guns are permissible. Undoubtedly, too many people who shouldn’t own guns do, such as mentally unstable people or people with a prior history of violent behavior. But again, just as the violent offender, not some prior speaker, is the guilty party, the culprit in crimes involving guns is not the gun, but the criminal. The right to own a gun is an inalienable self-defense right. The peaceful, law abiding gun owner is not responsible for some other who commits a crime with a gun. 

Both are wrong. But Cupani is the most egregiously wrong. I could sum up my basic counter-arguments; to Sheridan, I would say “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” and to Cupani, “Free speech doesn’t kill people, people kill people.” Regulating gun ownership in a rational, rights-respecting way could conceivably reduce some wrongful uses of guns used in violence. But restricting in any way freedom of speech, or more broadly First Amendment rights, could only lead to violence. Cupani’s implicit call for censorship or even repeal of the First Amendment is dangerous totalitarian nonsense.

Humans are rational beings. There are only two ways for people to deal with one another, reason or violence. Suppose, to apply one example, the government institutes policies that violate my rights—some Communistic, Fascist, or collectivist policy. Protected by the First Amendment, I can fight back through speech, advocating for politicians who would change those policies. Take my speech away, and what’s left? Ultimately, only some kind of physical resistance—i.e. violence. You can’t have a free, civil society—or counter the threats to thereof—without the freedom of expression and the broad protections for intellectual freedom embodied in the First Amendment.

The First and Second Amendments are not in conflict. The right to self-defense and the right to free expression are philosophical blood brothers. Sheridan complains of too many guns. Without the First Amendment, we’ll need many more guns, since our means of defending our rights, freedom of speech, would be banned. Cupani decrees violence. Much more violence would be the ultimate result of taking away the rights to express our “propaganda and hate-related rhetoric.” But most crucially, the First and Second Amendments—the rights of self-defense and the rights of self-expression—are integral to the rights to life, liberty, and property. Therefore, any restriction on these rights are not only impractical. They are immoral to the core. 

Related Reading:

Under the Guise of ‘Gun Control,’ a Call to Trash the First Amendment

The First Amendment Restricts Government, Not Private Citizens

Protecting Rights vs. Sanctioning Action

To 'Stop Gun Violence,' Stop Free Speech, Leftist Says

Want to Stop Gun Violence? End the War on Drugs—FEE

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ Scary Attack on the Right of ‘Personal Self-Defense'

A New Jersey School Superintendent’s Anti-Educational Lesson–Only One Side to the School Shooting ‘Discussion’

Human Volition, not Guns, is the Source of Gun Aggression

HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship (Inalienable Rights)--Nadine Strossen

QUORA: 'Marx’s economic theories have been discredited. Why is he the most studied author in U.S. colleges?'

 QUORA: 'Marx’s economic theories have been discredited. Why is he the most studied author in U.S. colleges?'

I posted this answer:

I don’t know if Karl Marx is the most studied author in U.S. colleges. But he continues to be very influential. Clemson University professor C. Bradley Thompson argues that Marx still has powerful appeal, despite the demonstrated absurdity and destructiveness of his “scientific socialist” economics. Why? Thompson argues convincingly that Marx’s continued influence stems not from his economic theories but from his moral message. I recommend Why Marxism?, a 51 minute lecture by C. Bradley Thompson delivered for The Foundation for Economic Freedom. A written version is available at The Objective Standard, although it is behind a paywall. Thompson does a better job than I could ever do of explaining why, even though his economic theories have been thoroughly discredited, Marx continues, shamefully, to have prominence in U.S. colleges. 

Related Reading:

Marxism is Malevolence and Hate. So How Do We Kill It?

QUORA: ‘Fascism was not opposed to private property or capitalism, so how can it be described as Marxist or socialist?’

A Socialist Confirms that the Basics of ‘True’ Socialism is Totalitarianism

On Marx’s 200th Birthday

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard

Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society

WeatherNation is Right to Stick to Actual Weather Reporting vs. Climate Change Propaganda

The climate propaganda cartel infects virtually everything in media, including weather reporting. So what happens when one weather reporting network resists the cartel, and sticks to actual weather reporting? It comes up against the cartel’s rage. Scott Dance, writing in A weather network, tied to one of Steve Bannon’s platforms, comes under fire for The Washington Post, reports on the cartel’s attack on WeatherNation, which he refers to as “critics”:

These critics also argue that in its own coverage, WeatherNation fosters climate change skepticism by shunning any mention of the established links between human-driven climate warming and the disasters the channel covers, thus discouraging viewers from considering the consequences of climate change.

The emphasized portion is political propaganda. There are no such “established links.” There are established links between weather events and various atmospheric conditions. Climate is not real. It is a statistical abstraction—a compilation of weather data for specific regions averaged out over a period of decades (usually 30 years, for weather reporting purposes). In other words, weather, which is real, determines climate averages. Climate change refers to long term changes in atmospheric patterns, the cause of which can be caused by human or natural activities. These long term changes can affect the climate statistics, altering what we call climate. The same changes in atmospheric patterns can ultimately affect weather. But how is never directly provable. It can only be speculated upon. What can be observed is how the patterns themselves affect weather. That’s what weather reporting is about.

Climate change considerations are irrelevant to weather reporting. I have been a weather buff since early childhood. Born in 1949, I lived through decades of slight global cooling (roughly 1940 - 1980) followed by the current warming period since (roughly 1980 to the present. It’s interesting to speculate about these mild climate changes. But that is irrelevant to weather reporting. When I watch weather stations, I want weather info, not unverifiable climate claims of “established links” to weather events. I want to know about jet streams and highs and lows and atmospheric rivers and ocean temperatures and polar vortexes and La Niñas and the myriad other phenomena that affect weather.

Ten current and former WeatherNation employees who spoke with The Washington Post described a discomfort with the programming produced next door — as well as with an understanding that they should refrain from on-air references to climate change, despite the scientific consensus on how it influences on global weather extremes (sic).

On-air references to climate change is exactly the kind of  irrelevant speculative trivia that muddles most weather reporting these days. It’s political propaganda, as indicated by the inclusion of the phrase “scientific consensus.” Together with “climate change skepticism,” it’s obvious what the critics are up to: They seek to stifle rational dissent and debate. But weather reporting should not be on either side, or any side, of the controversial topic of how, or if, a shifting climate plays in to weather events. Weather reporting networks should stick to what their name demands—weather.

Such propaganda is why I rarely watch The Weather Channel any longer. It is an unnecessary injection of useless info. Nothing happening in weather is anything that hasn’t happened before. There is simply no way to provably link any weather event to climate change, as any self-respecting meteorologist will tell you. I don’t need to be lectured to by political hacks.

I never heard of WeatherNation before coming across this article. But it’s refreshing to know that there still exists a weather outlet that actually sticks to verifiable facts. Climate is a legitimate topic. But it has no place in weather reporting. 

WeatherNation president Michael Norton said in an interview that although WeatherNation’s success helped to shape strategy in the launch of Real America’s Voice [Bannon’s parent network], the two entities operate independently. He stressed that WeatherNation is strictly focused on giving viewers constant weather updates, especially during events such as hurricanes and tornado outbreaks.

“A lot of people tune into our service during those events to watch live coverage,” Norton said. “They know we’ve become a trusted brand during these live events.”

An experienced forecaster, Douglas — whose legal name is Douglas Kruhoeffer — founded WeatherNation in 2008. He taped forecast segments for syndication, emailing them to stations that could not or did not want to produce weather forecasts in-house.

In an apparent reference to The Weather Channel, Kruhoeffer explains:

“No documentaries, specials or movies, just cutting edge graphics, a heavy emphasis on social media, and a staff of degreed meteorologists,” Douglas told The Washington Post in 2011.

WeatherNation has never strayed from that road map.

Thankfully!

WeatherNation has about 700,000 followers on Facebook, some 100,000 more than Real America’s Voice.

“It reminds me of what the Weather Channel looked like 20 years ago [the Weather Channel I loved]—very basic experience with elementary graphics, elevator music played behind local updates, et cetera,” said Michael Greeson, the principal analyst for Aluma Insights, a research firm focused on streaming video. “To put it another way, it appears made for older viewers who just want the basics [like me].”

On its Facebook page, WeatherNation explains:

As numerous sources predict increases in severe weather episodes throughout the US in the coming years, WeatherNation is ready to offer viewers timely, accurate and compelling information around the clock to keep you current with national, regional, and local conditions.

My emphasis. 

Of what value are such years-ahead “predictions” to viewers concerned about tomorrow’s actual weather? Predictions of more severe weather have been going on for decades, with little to show for their accuracy. To WeatherNation’s Facebook statement I can only say, keep up the good, honest reporting, and leave the speculation to the political mouthpieces..

Related Reading:

Samantha Tassillo’s Irresponsible Call to Turn Weather Reporting into Political Propaganda

The Associated Press’s Biased ‘Reporting’

The Collectivist Left Media Launches Major ‘Climate Crisis’ Propaganda Campaign

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change, 2nd Edition, by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 – An Enduring Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice—Journal of Geography & Natural Disasters

It is therefore surprising to discover that by all the various real world data considered here, the weather in the first half of the 20th century was, if anything, more extreme than in the second half.

The Fight Against Biden’s Racist Policies is Having Some Success

Previously, I wrote about elements of the Biden Administration’s Covid Relief bill, which contained racially discriminatory programs, including a five $billion program brazenly titled the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act. That act explicitly excludes farmers based on skin color, and has been struck down in court. Another program, the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, was also struck down on racial discrimination grounds.

This is good news for champions of equal protection of the law. But, sadly, not everyone is happy about it.

Washington Post reports Beth Reinhard and Josh Dawsey have a rather biased, but encouraging, report on the progress of those lawsuits. How a Trump-allied group fighting ‘anti-white bigotry’ beats Biden in court: America First Legal was founded last year by Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s immigrant family separation policy. 

These Biden laws relate not to specific, provable wrongs committed against actual victims, which belong in a court of law,* but relate to so-called "historically disadvantaged"  groups. These laws are rooted in a primitive, blatantly anti-justice collectivist premise: They target people by tribal lineage. Individualism is the only proper basis for justice. A person should be judged by his own individual ideas, character, and actions, not his genetic, cultural, economic, or other tribal lineage. No one is responsible for the actions or troubles of a collection of ancestors. These racist laws that discriminate based on skin cells, gender, or other immutable unchosen characteristics are a reversion to savagery. It is despicable that these racist laws are mentioned in even loose association to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is based on an exact antipode. Civilization and justice are products of The Enlightenment. Biden's laws are clearly not just or civil.

You cannot "right historical wrongs against marginalized communities'' by disadvantaging modern communities made up of individuals who weren’t around when the alleged injustices occurred. Historical wrongs are settled history. You cannot "right '' settled history, because you can't change history. You cannot remedy historical wrongs by creating new historical wrongs any more than you can defeat racism with new versions of racism. That is just a reversion to the perpetual cycles of tribal revenge of primitive savage cultures. The only just way to "correct '' historical wrongs is by upholding the individualist Enlightenment principles of America's Founding, the universal practice of individual rights and equality before the law under a government limited to protecting those rights equally and at all times. 

Miller's prior association with Trump is irrelevant. While I can't say I necessarily agree with AFL on all of  its legal initiatives or reasoning, I could offer up an emphatic kudos to Miller, America First Legal, and their staff for their courageous fight against the Biden Administration's primitive, unjust, tribal laws. It's a laugh that proponents of Biden's laws charge that Trump "stoked racial divisions." Maybe so. But Trump's antics pale in comparison to Biden's explicitly racist laws. The Biden Administration is the most racist administration since the Jim Crow era. 

Reinhard and Dawsey attempt to tarnish and dilute Miller's and AFL's case, and polish Biden's agenda, by repeated references to Trump. But objectively, the Trumpists are on the right side of this issue. And you can't cloak the evil, enduring vampire of racism in collectivist sloganeering or rationalization. The grossly mis-named "equity agenda" is "one of the single greatest threats to the survival of our constitutional system"—a revolutionary system that, whatever its flaws, is rooted in the moral ideal of individualism. Collectivism is not civil. It is not just. It is not moral. It is a remnant of humanity's savage past, which The Enlightenment, civilization, and Americanism left behind. Tragically, that project is not yet complete—not by a long shot, it seems.

* [E.G., the Pigford cases. Whether this settlement is good or not is beside the point here. My point is, the court system, which prioritizes facts and objectively balancing of competing arguments, is the proper venue for discrimination complaints.]

Related Reading:

The Dem's Jim Crow 2.0

Biden’s Racist Education Trial Balloon

‘Anti-Racism’, or the re-Mainstreaming of Racism

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Inspiring Climb to Supreme Court Nominee

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’

Pennsylvania’s Central Bucks School District Pushes for Real Education Against Primitive Woke Reaction.

An education controversy has erupted in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Freda R. Savana reported on the controversy for the Bucks County Herald. In School board directors across PA denounce Central Bucks’ “advocacy policy”, Savana reports:

In an open letter, dozens of school board members from more than 20 Pennsylvania districts called for the repeal of Central Bucks School District’s policy banning teachers from “advocacy activities” in their classrooms.

First, note that there are 499 school districts in Pennsylvania. So the 20+school districts, and by implication the “dozens of school board members,” are tiny minorities. That doesn’t necessarily invalidate the letter’s concerns. But we must keep the controversy in perspective. 

“On the surface, the policy is clearly targeted to harm LGBTQ+ students and community members, with the immediate ban of Pride Flags in classrooms, but it has already harmed other historically marginalized groups,” the letter states.

Policy 321, titled, “Partisan, Political or Social Policy Advocacy Activities,” “has tainted the public’s trust in School Boards to foster educational, inclusive, and tolerant environments for learning,” reads the letter.

“On the surface?” What does the Central Bucks School District actually say? Under the heading “Purpose,” Policy 321 states:

Neutrality and balance in classroom instruction are desired in order to create an optimal learning environment and atmosphere of inclusiveness, where all students are welcome. Because views and beliefs about partisan, political, or social policy matters are often deeply personal, employees should not, during assigned work hours, advocate to students concerning their views or beliefs on these matters. Such advocacy does not contribute to a positive learning climate and may be disruptive, divisive, and distracting. Rather, classroom instruction should relate to approved curriculum. The district’s role is to teach students how to think, not what to think, thereby keeping classrooms as places of education, not indoctrination.

My emphasis.

The open letter clearly doesn’t agree that schools should teach students how, now what, to think. But that is the essence of fostering independent thinking. 

Under “Definitions,” Policy 321 states:

For purposes of this policy, advocacy and advocate are defined as the use of speech, conduct, or symbols to support or oppose a particular point of view or belief about partisan, political, or social policy issues or matters. 

The Policy statement then lists examples of prohibited advocacy activities, followed by exceptions, which would be permitted when related to “Instruction and study concerning partisan, political, or social policy issues when directly relevant to the curriculum and appropriate to classroom studies given the students’ age, class year, and course of study. . .”

“On the surface,” I see nothing wrong with Policy 321. One thing is certain, the policy is clearly not “targeted to harm LGBTQ+ students and community members.” One can argue about specific details of what constitutes improper advocacy and what is legitimate study related to partisan, political, or social policy issues. Where to draw that line is an important question. But one thing is certain. An objective approach to classroom debate on partisan, political, or social policy issues demands that the teacher be strictly neutral on the topic being discussed. A teacher is in a position of power over the students. A teacher taking sides clearly biased the debate. Students who differ from the teacher can feel intimidated into silence, given the teacher’s power to grade the students. The teacher is the authority, and the neutrality of the authority is a necessary way to foster clear thinking and expression, and thus foster intelligent, informative debate. 

The policy 321 restrictions on advocacy is directly aimed at employees, and concerns “all District owned or leased property, within all school buildings, and at all District-sponsored activities.” As I read it, the students themselves would be free to advocate for their positions, but only in a personal way.  Exceptions to the ban on advocacy include “Wearing small pieces of jewelry, consistent with the professional dress code, that symbolically represent an individual’s personal beliefs.”  But no “Employees shall not direct or encourage students to write, address, or distribute advocacy materials related to any partisan, political, or social policy issue.” I take this to mean school property and/or activities should not be a forum or platform for student advocacy, because that makes the school and its employees an implicit “encourager” or endorser of the viewpoint displayed. 

I find Policy 321 to be eminently sensible. The open letter clearly doesn’t agree. By opposing this policy, it confirms my belief that American government schools are more indoctrination camps than educational facilities. The contradictions in the open letter confirm this:

School boards play a “unique role in our society,” said the letter. “A crucial part of this mission is fostering an inclusive, tolerant environment, free from discrimination, bias or prejudice.

“On the surface,” the letter seems to agree with Policy 321. Certainly, when partisan, political, or social policy issues are debated within the context of appropriate curriculum, which Policy 321 allows, every student and viewpoint should be included and tolerated “free from discrimination, bias or prejudice.” It is shocking, therefor, to read the very next sentence of the open letter: 

“This is particularly true for some of our most vulnerable populations of students — those facing any number of different, personal challenges or working to overcome traditional societal barriers.”

This Woke gobbledegook means that some politically advantaged viewpoints will be privileged, while others degraded or forbidden, on the grounds of not being “vulnerable” or “challenged” or “working to overcome traditional societal barriers,” whatever they mean in practice. Put in “Animal Farm” paraphrasing, this means all students should be equally awarded  “an inclusive, tolerant environment, free from discrimination, bias or prejudice” for all students, but some students are to be more equal than others.

As to the collectivist orientation of the open letter, the reference to “historically marginalized groups” is a direct assault on civilization. Civilization, in essence, is the rise of individualism. Individualism holds that every individual is born morally tabula rasa—born with no pre-existing guilt, victimhood, or any responsibility for others’ prior actions, ideas, or prejudices. The idea of considering the historical social, political, or cultural state of groups, such as “ historically marginalized groups,” means that each person is to be judged not on his/her own character, values, and actions, but on the character, actions, and values of a collection of ancestors. This is the basic premise of racism. It is a worldview that obliterates just judgment. This historicism is a direct repudiation of civilization, which lifted humanity up from the savagery of collectivism.

Needless to say, this primitivism has no place in modern education, if the term education has any rational meaning. Yet this Woke horror is being imposed on school kids by adults who should be teaching how to think, not what to think. It is educational malpractice, at the very least. At worst, it is phycological child abuse.

If we’re talking about private schools, it would still be wrong for teachers to inject their advocacy into the classroom process. But then, parents would have the option to pull their children and their money, and seek alternatives, which in a vibrantly functioning free market would be plentiful. 

The fact that the opposition immediately “saw '' bigotry “on the surface” indicates that it has no counter-argument to the County’s Policy 321. That is classic Wokism. No proof needed. No evidence needed. There is nothing in the Policy that targets or harms LGBTQ+ students and community members, or any other students. The letter signers just know, like a religious revelation, that it is so. I don’t know what the private motivations of the county school board members are. Maybe the LGBTQ+ issue was on the mind of one of the Central Bucks School District board members. But whatever discriminatory motivations may have been on the minds of any Central Bucks school board member, it doesn’t show up in it’s Policy 321 statement, “on the surface” or in any other way. Policy 321 merely, and clearly, calls for an end to indoctrination, and to stick to a properly defined educational mission. 

This basic thrust of Policy 321 is long overdue. That this open letter objects to such a policy, which should be uncontroversial, leads me to strongly suspect that the signers of the open letter are primarily motivated by a drive to protect it’s coercive power to indoctrinate students in its Woke ideology. 

American government schools are now dominated by a Leftist Education Cartel which has made our schools What Philosopher Andrew Berstein refers to as a virtual “impregnable fortress” of Leftist ideological indoctrination, as E.D. Hirsch Jr. put it. Hirsch made that observation in 1999. It’s much, much worse now. Kudos to the Central Bucks School District for taking a courageous stand for real education. I hope they can hold up against the fierce reactionaries. 

Related Reading:

What is the Purpose of Education?

Critical Race Theory And Gender Ideology Are Ubiquitous In US Schools, New Study Shows by Jack Elbaum for FEE

Contra Michelle Purdy, Education is about Independent Thinking, Not Indoctrination.

The Comprachicos by Ayn Rand

The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools by Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard

Is Your Child State Property?

Is Climate Indoctrination Coming to NJ Government Schools?

‘Anti-Racism’, or the re-Mainstreaming of Racism

Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter

Bad Schools and What to Do about Them, with Andrew Bernstein by Jon Hersey for The Objective Standard

Woke Racism by John McWhorter